On Thu, 12 May 2005, Autrijus Tang wrote:
>On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 06:09:00PM -0400, Dino Morelli wrote:
>> >Feel free to correct 'no_plan'. I'll happily apply any and all
>> >patches to the tests, and those with commit privs are welcome
>> >to directly modify the t/p6rules/*.t files at any time.
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 06:09:00PM -0400, Dino Morelli wrote:
> >Feel free to correct 'no_plan'. I'll happily apply any and all
> >patches to the tests, and those with commit privs are welcome
> >to directly modify the t/p6rules/*.t files at any time.
> >
>
> Speak of the devil -- I started worki
On Wed, 11 May 2005, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
>On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 06:16:27PM +0200, Uwe Voelker wrote:
>>
>> Btw. the tests in t/p6rules/*.t have 'no_plan'. Should this be changed
>> to reflect the correct number of tests? I have this patch ready, but I'm
>> too shy to post :-)
>
>Feel free
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 06:16:27PM +0200, Uwe Voelker wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I fixed a small typo in PBC_COMPAT.
>
> Btw. the tests in t/p6rules/*.t have 'no_plan'. Should this be changed
> to reflect the correct number of tests? I have this patch ready, but I'm
That seems reasonable to me. Please do.
Here it is (together with a gentle reminder at the end of the .t file :-)
But feel free to leave this line out.
Uwe
Index: t/p6rules/anchors.t
===
--- t/p6rules/anchors.t (revision 8065)
+++ t/p
chromatic schrieb:
On Wed, 2005-05-11 at 18:16 +0200, Uwe Voelker wrote:
I fixed a small typo in PBC_COMPAT.
Thanks, applied.
From reading PBC_COMPAT I gathered that PBC_COMPAT should only be
changed, when the PBC syntax has changed.
# The text in this file is also the base of the
On Wed, 2005-05-11 at 18:16 +0200, Uwe Voelker wrote:
> I fixed a small typo in PBC_COMPAT.
Thanks, applied.
> Btw. the tests in t/p6rules/*.t have 'no_plan'. Should this be changed
> to reflect the correct number of tests? I have this patch ready, but I'm
> too
Hello,
I fixed a small typo in PBC_COMPAT.
Btw. the tests in t/p6rules/*.t have 'no_plan'. Should this be changed
to reflect the correct number of tests? I have this patch ready, but I'm
too shy to post :-)
Bye,
Uwe
In